People still use them as a weapon, scare tactic, bullying. Anti-social behavior on a social network will be difficult to normalize. I believe in honest curation.
I fully agree and I do not condone such behavior. For the victims of serious abuse, healing upvotes are something that should be considered. On Steem, one TA "specialist" did a lot of damage by abusively downvoting people.
If it takes 100 accounts to raise $15 and one to knock it down $15, that's one speaking for 100 people, negating their efforts, saying they were wrong.
The issue in that is stake distribution. There are many ways to remedy that including reward earners powering up their rewards, buying more HIVE and powering up, and other stakeholders taking a look at the situation and using their votes to correct it. I recall one instance where someone expressed disagreement on how HDF funds were being distributed in a post that got downvoted heavily by one large stakeholder. The upvoters doubled down their efforts and the post ended up earning reasonably well considering how controversial it was.
I feel that's a waste of resources though. Recently I was getting slammed hard with a large downvote, automatically. As the value of the token plummeted I think those downvotes ranged from $60 down to $20 before it stopped. People invest in my content, this is a business I'm trying to run here. More work goes in when more money hits the wallet, certainly don't want to do less for more and take it all for granted. I told folks on the first day though don't worry about countering those downvotes with upvotes. There's a trickle down effect. If someone is helping fix my problem, someone else down the line is earning less. That's not cool.
I prefer to see the downvotes being used to counter abuse. I realize we all have our own opinions and I won't try to convince you to see it my way. I respect the reward pool as much as any stakeholder here plus I'm a seasoned veteran, been around forever. I get it.
I don't have much to add to the rest of your comment but I'd like to say something about this.
Downvoting power is limited, too, and once it's been used up, downvoting will begin to eat into the downvoter's upvoting power. How all votes are distributed is never one user's problem. Everything affects everyone. If you get hit by downvotes that are clearly unreasonable and have nothing to do with the quality of the content being downvoted, that's everyone's issue because it sends rewards that should land on good content back to the pool from which curators will have to allocate them again. Abusive downvoting wastes every curator's time.
Abusive downvoting does waste time and it also pushes away potential new investment. One of Hive's easiest selling points that often gets overlooked is the fact a consumer gets paid to consume. They must have HP though. If this platform somehow attracted a true big name who understand the economy here, that individual content creator could attract thousands upon thousands of small valuable votes. If these consumers are donating or subscribing someplace else, Hive offers them a far better deal since that consumer no longer throws their money away. That content creator would receive those votes daily, plus these thousands of consumers have nine more votes that trickle down, spilling over onto other interesting content of their choosing. It's a win for everyone but if that effort to attract thousands just gets downvoted because "too much", we'd never be able to attract another one who then attracts thousands more. Content is a product. Buying Hive and staking it is how this content is sold. Those consumers are important and these downvotes negatively affect far more consumers than just the one content creator taking the hit. Each post becomes its own reward pool for hundreds of people now and hopefully thousands into the future. Start chipping away at legit content and even those consumers have no reason to be here, yet they're the most important. Often in cases of abuse it's only a handful of people with multiple accounts farming rewards. Sorry for the wall of text; was in a hurry.
You're talking about a big name on Hive. Big names rarely become big names by posting valueless crap. So, odds are a big name who brings thousands of his or her followers along with him/her will most likely post the kind of interesting and engaging content that won't be downvoted too much and will most likely be rewarded well. And if it does get downvoted to some extent, so what? The rewards are going to be quite large if experience is any guide. Remember when one big YouTuber came to Steem in early 2018? His name was Pete something. He instantly earned hundreds of dollars per post each containing one of his YouTube videos. He eventually left but that certainly wasn't because of any downvotes. He was the sort of content creator whose videos got millions of views on the regular. I doubt very much too many of his followers found their way here. Onboarding still needs to be improved.
"Valueless crap." How many markets do you want create? Horse owners said there was no value in a car. People said nobody would buy bottle water. If something supposedly has no value, put a value on it, make money. In this case someone thought a selfie wasn't worth that much, yet there are people making the big bucks taking selfies. Independent modeling. It's not my thing but if it attracts people, those people might spill over onto my work. I don't need to like something to benefit from it. That goes for everyone else here. Those calling things worthless are almost always wrong.
As for big names with large outside followings that have come in the past... It's happened more than once. They rarely attract paying consumers. Stuck in the old ways and don't understand the economy. They make the big bucks because large stakeholders become starstruck, making it easy for them to make the big bucks. They take the money and run. No need to set themselves up to earn long term from their own fanbase. Plus they're already set to earn elsewhere. Look at the posts these days. Plenty of social media links. Plenty of wallet addresses asking for donations, spread all over all these social media accounts. Never once pointing out to any of their outside following the benefits of supporting their content here. Nobody gets it.
I'm not saying selfies are a worthless category. Not at all. There are selfies of every level of quality. On Hive, we have @eveuncovered, for example, who is not only pretty but a skillful photographer one of whose specialties is self-portraits. Her rewards are generally a bit lower than the author of the top-level post we're commenting on despite Eve's content being of clearly higher quality compared to what we've seen so far from the new kid on the block.
In fact, I think Hive is at a stage where not even the base layer tokens are properly distributed, yet. Few of the big names have any reason to leave their comfort zones. But YouTube and the rest are getting progressively shittier with all the tightening censorship. I think we should focus on the early adopter types interested in building something here in the long term.
Youtube's early business model is a good one to follow. The site would be nothing, Google wouldn't have purchased it, if those first content creators were kicked to the curb. Once many of those folks combined were able to lure in more and more consumers, then the money started rolling in, then the big names followed the money. The big names laughed at Youtube, at first, and not in a good way. Traditional content providers never saw it as a threat.
This place needs dedicated creators posting exclusives, leading to success stories. It needs consumers sharing links around to traditional social media outlets, since each piece of actual content is a free ad. That behavior helped Youtube tremendously in the early days. I see content creators sharing links to their own followings, which is fine if their following doesn't mind being spammed, but the proper way is make sharing across other networks appealing and easy to do so the consumers share the content to their followings. It spreads out much faster that way and that's the only way something can go viral. Not much of that kind of sharing happening here at the moment.
Since the consumer is always where the money comes from in this arts/entertainment/information world, this place needs to tap in to that market. Everyone can see the low number of comments under posts. Even though the average online is about one comment per article, a place like this needs to look more like Youtube. One instance of content, thousands of viewers. A good percentage of those viewers needs to have staked tokens in the wallet. Attracting them can potentially bring in more money than can leave, which is important. I see onboarding efforts once again being targeted towards amateur content creators. Most will struggle, especially with the lack of consumers. I cringe a bit, since creating is the toughest job and hardest way to earn. People need to know they'll be putting in time, time is money, but they can also put in money, which is the same as time, and have it easier simply by enjoying whatever they like, earning that way, as a consumer. That role needs to be marketed as well.